-
#300
by
bubbagret
on 14 May, 2014 16:32
-
As recently as 11/13, Dwayne Day noted in his Burning Thunder article:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1 that the F-1 was being potentially looked at by ULA.
"
More recently, the company evaluated an “F-1C” design for a commercial customer—probably United Launch Alliance—but that project did not go forward and therefore no details have been made public."
Has any further public mention been made of this anywhere else that anyone is aware of?
...and of what possible applications were being looked at?
-
#301
by
InfraNut2
on 14 May, 2014 16:52
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
edit:
For lazy readers: the most relevant point for this thread in the transcript is that it is confirmed that
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
Even though, overall, the sanctions seems more reasonable and restrained than feared, this will hit ULA and DOD hard since most of the RD-180s are planned to be used for military payloads.
NASAs Commercial Crew and Science seem to have dodged the bullet when it comes to launches, but no ISS extension beyond 2020 will have some negative impacts for NASA and its partners.
When it comes to consequences for Antares Engine choice, I created a separate thread for that. There are also other treads for non-ULA specific discussion on this, like: domestic-alternative, ISS-related, general so there is no excuse to fill this thread with non-ULA related stuff
GPS/GLONASS and other ISS related issues are described as well
-
#302
by
Lar
on 14 May, 2014 16:56
-
-
#303
by
Hauerg
on 14 May, 2014 17:16
-
-
#304
by
Patchouli
on 14 May, 2014 17:43
-
As recently as 11/13, Dwayne Day noted in his Burning Thunder article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1 that the F-1 was being potentially looked at by ULA.
"More recently, the company evaluated an “F-1C” design for a commercial customer—probably United Launch Alliance—but that project did not go forward and therefore no details have been made public."
Has any further public mention been made of this anywhere else that anyone is aware of?
...and of what possible applications were being looked at?
It would require new pad interfaces but it depends which is harder adapting the pad or tooling up for for RD1-80 production vs F-1C.
Near term I wonder if it would be a good excuse to spend money on man rating the Delta IV.
This would kill two birds with one stone in that man rating the heavy also would allow a LV for LEO Orion missions.
-
#305
by
AncientU
on 14 May, 2014 18:06
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
-
#306
by
Jakusb
on 14 May, 2014 18:18
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
This goes both ways.
Like the US is blame free.
I totally agree that annexing Crimea is a clear violation of international law and decency.
But thinking only Russia uses propaganda would be naive too.
-
#307
by
meekGee
on 14 May, 2014 18:23
-
Who-swung-first is a never ending blame fest. Even though I'm very firmly with the west here, I am sure the Russians are not sitting around going "muuaaauaaauaa we are sooo evil". They probably see losing Ukraine to be a Western intervention to begin with. It doesn't matter. This is not the 50s, and they are very foolish to get into this spat with us.
Anyhoo. My impression of Rogozin's text is that it is full of exit ramps. It is very far from being "we're done, good bye". I see the West's reaction as being stronger than the actual statement. It's like when someone says "I don't think that's true" and the other side goes "what? you're calling me a liar now?"
IMO Russia has maximized what it can get from this situation and will now quickly climb down. Or at least it should. Trouble is, politics (and business) are personal, and not always rational.
If sanity prevails, we will have RD180s going forward, plus we've been fairly warned, and so it will have been a good thing. A good scare.
-
#308
by
bubbagret
on 14 May, 2014 18:29
-
As recently as 11/13, Dwayne Day noted in his Burning Thunder article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1 that the F-1 was being potentially looked at by ULA.
"More recently, the company evaluated an “F-1C” design for a commercial customer—probably United Launch Alliance—but that project did not go forward and therefore no details have been made public."
Has any further public mention been made of this anywhere else that anyone is aware of?
...and of what possible applications were being looked at?
It would require new pad interfaces but it depends which is harder adapting the pad or tooling up for for RD1-80 production vs F-1C.
Near term I wonder if it would be a good excuse to spend money on man rating the Delta IV.
This would kill two birds with one stone in that man rating the heavy also would allow a LV for LEO Orion missions.
Much more than pad interfaces would have to change and LEO is for commercial crew as far as NASA is concerned. What interested me was that ULA was apparently looking at the F-1 for "something". I would be very curious what that something would be purposed to do. Were they looking at a new satellite launcher as a replacement for Atlas and Delta both, or possibly an advanced booster concept for SLS?
...or, were they speculating quietly (publicly at least) to get away from RD180 or, even maybe using the speculation as a bargaining lever in respect to the RD180? There could be many possibilities there.
*added speculation
-
#309
by
AncientU
on 14 May, 2014 18:33
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
This goes both ways.
Like the US is blame free.
I totally agree that annexing Crimea is a clear violation of international law and decency.
But thinking only Russia uses propaganda would be naive too.
You're totally correct. Playing fast and loose with the truth, spinning it to your ends, etc. are fine art in the USA -- and occasionally, even on the internet. (!) Large bag of salt must remain near at hand.
-
#310
by
Rocket Science
on 14 May, 2014 18:33
-
I read it as adolescent behavior where they focus on the “consequence” as opposed to their “cause” that initiated it...Now they must seek revenge... Must be all the years of teaching...
The question is, where are all the adults in Russia?
-
#311
by
Lobo
on 14 May, 2014 18:43
-
If NROL-33 doesn't fly on Atlas come May 22, would it even take a Delta (4,4) to launch it? Would (4,2) have the performance?
I'm sure Jim will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I believe that Atlas-V payloads will need to be partially redesigned and rebuilt to fit on Delta-IV's payload interface.
That aside, about two years ago I suggested that ULA specialise with Delta-IV doing USAF/NRO launches and Atlas-V on civil/NASA launches. This was shot down by other posters at the time because there were few advantages and many disadvantages to doing so. I could never have guessed (and find no pleasure in learning) that this concept may yet be forced upon ULA by geopolitics.
This actually seems like a better way to go to me than a US-built RD-180. But Jim is pretty adamant that any down select will involve Delta IV going away. And he'd know far better than I.
Still, seems like a "Plan B" would be to start rationing out the payloads that need to fly on Atlas due to interfaces, and start having future payloads designed for Delta IV, and start moving to that and phasing out the Atlas, unless relations cool. Especially if a US-built RD-180 would be a 5-6 year program, and the license to even make that is due up in 2022. The fact there's even a chance that it might -not- be renewed makes investing in a US-made RD-180 risky, IMHO.
Perhaps it would be time to take another look at the SLI engines that were in development in the early 2000's. As I understand, at least the TR-107 could still have development finished and production started by Northrup/Grumman. I'm assuming the same could be done for RS-84, assuming it's IP went with Rocketdyne to Aerojet after the merger. Not sure how that would compare with AJR's AJ-1E6 development. All three engines are of a similar size and performance to RD-180.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/FS-2002-09-141-MSFC.pdf
-
#312
by
jongoff
on 14 May, 2014 18:59
-
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:
As usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
That's very interesting. So really it all comes down to words & their definitions.
Yeah, potentially. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Rogozin had intentionally used an ambiguous term like that to make it sound more serious while really not stating anything new.
~Jon
-
#313
by
jongoff
on 14 May, 2014 19:04
-
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
I'll be there on Wed the 21st, and will hopefully have time to stop by for a visit.
~Jon
-
#314
by
PahTo
on 14 May, 2014 20:05
-
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
I'll be there on Wed the 21st, and will hopefully have time to stop by for a visit.
~Jon
As evidenced by my post immediately after Mr. vanGiessen's, someone did notice. Thanks for responding, Jon. Hopefully you will share with us some of the highlights of said visit should it take place. (No, this isn't an invitation to build a list of questions, everyone! I suspect jongoff has a few pertinent thoughts/questions on the matter)...
-
#315
by
edkyle99
on 14 May, 2014 20:09
-
Has Sea Launch commander left port yet?
Should it?
Ed Kyle
-
#316
by
butters
on 14 May, 2014 20:11
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
So, effective immediately, Energomash personnel will be unavailable to support Atlas V launches for DoD/NRO. Historically, they have been on-site for every RD-180-powered launch. Is this a showstopper, or can ULA go ahead with their scheduled Atlas V launches without Energomash support?
-
#317
by
PahTo
on 14 May, 2014 20:12
-
Near term I wonder if it would be a good excuse to spend money on man rating the Delta IV.
This would kill two birds with one stone in that man rating the heavy also would allow a LV for LEO Orion missions.
A few problems here, considering "they" just announced they won't be man-rating the SLS iCPS (effectively the DCSS), which goes counter to man-rating it. Furthermore, there is no mission for an LEO Orion (that couldn't be done faster with a commercial solution). Finally, considering a D-IVH can get a light-weight Orion and a near-zero mass SM "only" to about a 3,900 mile elliptical orbit, it remains unclear if a D-IVH (even with RS-68A) can loft a fully functional Orion and SM to a useable orbit since we don't know how massive the vehicle will be. I/we suspect it can, but without knowing the details, we just don't know.
-
#318
by
schaban
on 14 May, 2014 20:18
-
-
#319
by
butters
on 14 May, 2014 20:56
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
Putin promised the newly-elected president of Ukraine a $15B discount on natural gas if he would oppose the U.S. effort to recruit Ukraine into NATO. The president accepted the deal and was promptly overthrown in a coup d'etat by a Western-friendly regime. That's when Russia annexed Crimea. It is disingenuous to claim that the story begins with Putin annexing Crimea.
It would be naive to suggest that the U.S. played no role in sponsoring the coup, and even if they didn't, Russia cannot be blamed for reacting to a coup in an allied nation by asserting sovereignty over longstanding military installations like the naval base in Crimea. If the government of Japan were overthrown by a hostile regime, the United States would seize Okinawa where the U.S. Pacific Fleet is based.
The question is, where are all the adults in Russia? 